tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 06 22:23:04 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DIS chu' Quch
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: DIS chu' Quch
- Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 22:57:49 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: DIS chu' Quch
>At 01:34 PM 1/6/98 -0800, SuStel wrote:
>>This demonstrates another form of which I am fond: using an adjectival
verb
>>only once, and sticking the entire noun phrase into a relative clause. It
>>follows all known rules. Given the information in KGT, however, I wonder
if
>>it isn't somehow stylistically wrong to Klingons. Okrand does tell us
that
>>one "must say" {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh} to say this phrase.
>>
>
>Yeah, I wonder about this, too. Okrand does give the impression that
>you must use the {X-bogh N 'ej Y-bogh} form with two adjectives of
>quality; on the other hand, I can't think of any reason why this would
>be so.
>
>You can see why you can't just glom two adjectives onto a noun, eg
>*{DIS chu' Quch}. There's no known mechanism to indicate that they're both
>modifiers of the noun. (In this case, it _could_ mean "the forehead
activates
>the year"!) So I can understand the need to move one of the verbs into
>a relative clause, but why would this now make the noun unable to take
>a regular adjective anymore?
My point is that although there is no stated grammar to exclude such a
construction, I was wondering if perhaps it was "stylistically wrong," not
grammatically wrong. However, it turns out that it's not. See below . . .
>After all, can't you say things like {qettaHbogh loD Doy'}? If you can't,
>how could you use a phrase like {qettaHbogh loD 'ej Doy'bogh} as the
>subject or object of a sentence? *{qettaHbogh loD 'ej Doy'bogh vIlegh} =
>"I see ? who is tired and (new sentence without a verb) a running man"?
This IS apparently a valid way to say this.
qettaHbogh loD 'ej Doy'bogh vIlegh.
I see the running, tired man.
Unless for some reason Klingon does not permit one to mix verbs of quality
and other verbs in constructions like this, but I see no reason to believe
THAT at all.
Note that saying
qettaHbogh loD Doy'bogh loD je vIlegh
would apparently mean, "I see the running man and the tired man." (Two
men.)
>I'm hoping that Okrand clears this up someday and explicitly endorses
>your idea.
I've located an instance where he uses the construction we are considering:
yIntaHbogh tlhIngan Soj tlhol jablu'DI'
(Literally, "When one serves unprocessed Klingon food which is living.")
(SkyBox card S21)
Thus, the construction IS allowed.
SuStel
Stardate 98018.2